Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers side-effect transparency; the description adds a useful behavioral prerequisite (active project context) not present in the annotation. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no redundancy. The core action, scope, criteria, return type, and prerequisite are all conveyed without wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple filter/search tool, the description is complete: what is searched, how results are matched, what is returned, and a necessary context condition. No output schema exists, so the stated return type suffices.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are fully covered in the schema, and the description enriches the query parameter semantics by specifying that it matches names, paths, and descriptions. The limit parameter is adequately described in schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('API specs and endpoints'), scope ('active project'), and matching criteria ('by name, path, or description'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling list/get tools by covering both specs and endpoints with search semantics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a prerequisite ('Requires project context') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_specs or list_endpoints. The purpose strongly implies when to use, but lacks an explicit when-not or alternative comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.